When I made some comments in the same combox where I announced the paper, all of a sudden we saw a good old-fashioned Internet "feeding frenzy," with five safely anonymous atheists (not a single one of them gives their full name), joining in with wholesale mockery and insults and slanderous garbage, about Christians and about myself.

As always, I like to illustrate the bankruptcy of all such worthless, non-rational "discussions" online (which happen everywhere: commonly in Christian venues as well) by simply exposing them. They are their own refutations. I sure hope this isn't representative of atheism as a whole (I know many atheists personally who are very different), but I know this sort of nonsense is very common at atheist sites online. I'm sure it turns more people off to atheism than a hundred Christian apologetic arguments could or would. Atheists like this are their own worst enemies.

I won't cite absolutely everything (if you read the whole thread, be aware that it contains vulgarities and blasphemies), but only remarks that are of an absurdly sweeping, prejudicial nature: against Christianity or yours truly (the latter, indented). Color coding is as follows:

Atheists and agnostics are welcome on my pages and are treated politely and courteously (while their arguments are vehemently opposed). (2-3-11)

I would have referred him to what modern day archaeologists are saying about there being no Nazareth at the time of alleged Jesus but generally people who are this willing to ignore the obvious contradictions and complete lack of historicity in the birth narratives are too far gone to have a discussion with.

he will be vehemently opposing any argument based on facts . . . Let us not allow facts to get in the way of our beliefs, for crying out loud.

There is one particularly foul git there known as "Doctor Doom", . . . who dismisses links from atheist sites out of hand, saying that they're "written by atheists with agendas, so you can't trust anything they say". Forget facts, they can't even face simple reality.

I just selected the latest post, so you would see it and not overlook it. It is humorously appropriate in this combox, though, since now my reasoning is being ridiculed and that was the topic of the post! LOL

It continues to be quite fashionable in atheist circles, apparently, to mock Christians and Christianity and yuck it up, sans rational discussion of a rational rebuttal of pet atheist theories. I've always marveled at it, but I don't think these tactics are gonna go away anytime soon. Mockery and irrationalism have long since replaced rational, constructive discussion, as the normative way to communicate and "refute" positions that are disagreed with, these days.

It's the same in politics, too, as we have observed in the recent spate of attacks on political conservatives as the alleged cause of the nutcase in Arizona.

Your books certainly do not consist solely of mocking and ridicule. There must be rational argument in them, I'm sure. I'm suggesting that you might want to encourage rational, mutually respectful discussion on your blog, too. You guys might actually like it: you never know! (2-5-11)

Given the negative agenda of this site (like so many atheist ones), you guys oughtta have a "dislike" button, so you can express your personal contempt for Christians! :-)

Let it be known that I don't return this contempt for atheists. Many Christians do, which is a sad thing (and they are wrong and inconsistent to do it), but I do not. That's why I try to have rational discussions with atheists. The common reluctance to do so doesn't come from my end.

We can continue to mock and ridicule (and in some cases, "hate") each other, or we can talk and reason like intelligent adults. (2-5-11)

Well, seeing as how I've spent months debating dozens and dozens of Christians(maybe over a hundred of them at this point) and still have yet to find any intelligent arguments from even one of them, my " personal contempt", as you call it, is well warranted. I don't even know why I bother; because in the end, no matter how intelligent you thought a Christian was, it all boils down to feelings, emotions, dogma, and their brainwashed inability to let go of cherished beliefs.

If that is your opinion, then why not simply ignore Christians? This is what is perplexing about atheist behavior. Apart from the very common spectacle and folly of being angry at a God that doesn't exist, they are obsessed with Christians whom they think are dumber than a doornail, and devoid (as you say) of even one intelligent argument.

Why bother? If I had such a view, I wouldn't waste time interacting with Christians, and I wouldn't even use up any energy mocking them. Speaking for myself, I don't waste time debating flat earthers or Neo-Nazis. I don't make fun of them, either. I simply ignore them as irrelevant and beyond hope (for intelligent discussion).

But you guys don't and can't seem to do that. This very site illustrates the problem: atheism seems to have to be self-defined by opposition to something else.You can't just live your life and live and let live. You have to mock and express contempt for those who disagree with you.

I have two books that could be said to be arguments against atheism. I also have 21 that aren't, because I don't define or confine myself in terms of beliefs that I oppose. But with John Loftus, it is different. Look at his books: it's all one droning theme: how Christianity is false, why he left it, etc. Has he nothing positive and pro-active to offer?

It's a very curious phenomenon, but there are several possible explanations, I suppose. (2-5-11)

we are somewhat miffed at the superior and arrogant attitudes that his followers adopt and have held for well over two thousand years. As for expressing mock and contempt, if our opponents could actually dredge up ONE good reason to believe in talking animals, mythical creatures, and demi-god rabbi/carpenters(without telling us that we were never True Christians(TM) . . . we might have some respect for them. . . . At least atheists don't churn out cheap, slanderous propaganda about other people's personal beliefs, . . . John Loftus wants people to see Christianity for the sham it is, no different from an ex-cultist victim who warns people about the Church of The Seventh Stone, or whatnot.

And thank you for the quintessential display of the arrogant, condescending attitude I was talking about. How precious... :)

And you wonder why atheists come to the conclusion that some theists are "dumber than a doornail".

I think faith addles the brain so that the believer is unable to see themselves the way an outsider perceives them due to the Dunning-Kruger effect (the ignorant are too ignorant to know they are the ignorant people). The believer needs to believe that their magical beliefs make them more moral so they are everlastingly trying to prove that to themselves. Unfortunately they often lose their sense of humor in the process. Fortunately, I think lurkers who read these posts are often moved towards reason. No one wants to seem like the theist blowhard who doesn't know he's a blowhard. Mockery is probably the best tool we have against such primitive thinking. . . . former believers often find comfort and healing in laughing at their former superstitions and those that try to manipulate others with them. . . . Life is jollier when you can find glee in their buffoonery.

(I suspect no-one but David Armstrong takes David Armstrong seriously.) I think it's funny that DA came to a skeptics site to get attention and then tells others to ignore him as though responses to him are "persecution"! I don't know any skeptics that go to "woo" sites or churches goofing on believers for their silly beliefs, do you?

I think it's just very hard for the theist to accept that the atheist finds their magical beliefs as silly (and potentially dangerous) as all the magical beliefs the theists rejects. (And for the same reasons!)

You suggest atheists are angry at God , this is manipulative and very misleading and deceitful propaganda. Most Atheists are not angry at God. Yet here you are pushing this deceitful manipulative propaganda that other theist sheep around you will end up having faith in. You also make the decietful [sic] manipulative accusation that atheists are simply "obesessed" [sic] with Christians. . . These false manipulative accusations turn theist sheep against atheists, plus have the effect of blinding theist sheep . . . And yet here you are Dave today, willingly spreading the manipulative deceitful propaganda/ministry. . . Does it make you feel morally superior? with your supposed God given "objective moral" values and Church hours spent warming pews, to be here today spreading blatant lies about Atheists. . . And when it upsets people like Brdeadite a bit .Dave Armstrong suddenly crys [sic] wolf and trys [sic] to suggest..."Thanks for the quintessential display of irrational atheist anger. Pathetic . . . " . . . Daves [sic] "faithful attitude" makes him feel NEED to revert to use of even more manipulative decetful [sic] propaganda tactics again. . . . This is simply deceitful.Its a manipulation of the truth. And amounts to propaganda. . . . Dave you cannot come to places like this and use such manipulative deceitful tactics ....And not expect people to get a little angry about it. . . . I suggest to you that while Theists continue on with these blatantly manipulative deceitful practices ..It is indeed even warrented! [sic] that we sometimes do use ridicule. . . Theists display thoughtless uncaring attitudes that deceitfully misjudge people in a bigoted way . . .

Grand total:

"manipulative": 9 times"deceitful": 9 times"Propaganda": 5 times

. . . for theist children to throw away their wee faith cuddly rugs, learn to grow up! and face responsibilities. . . We do see that much of its been so very childish and immensely irresponsible . . .

I don't think believers in magic are qualified to have "rational discussions", are they? -- especially when such discussions might interfere with the magical things they feel saved for "believing in"? Does anyone here know of a religionists who is capable of having a "rational discussion" when it comes to their religion? I would venture that those who are capable of rational discussion are on their way to becoming non-believers if they aren't there yet. I don't find self-described Christians any more capable of having rational discussions on Christianity than self-described Scientologists having a rational discussion on Scientology. I find that former believers are much more capable of rational and insightful discussion on the subject of supernatural beliefs than those who are beholden to such beliefs.

Christians march into skeptic sites feeling all mad and claiming persecution because someone dared to find their magical beliefs as goofy as they find other myths.

There is plenty of discussion that takes place afterward. . . . Stay on and engage us. We aim at having respectable debates, more or less.

Um, it's totally less in this thread, dude! How can you possibly write that last sentence with a straight face? LOL I could have a better dialogue with a comatose jellyfish than what is available here (at least based on the evidence of this thread).

Christian, see if your faith can withstand our assault.

Sure, my faith can withstand the endless personal assaults of atheists. No problem there. But rational dialogue cannot survive in such a scenario. Takes two willing parties to do that.

You will grow as you do. What harm can there be in seeing if your faith can be defended?

But this contradicts what everyone here is saying: that no Christian has ever given a single intelligent argument for anything! LOL

Try it and see. Test your faith here.

More like "test your patience," to see if it matches with Job's, . . . (2-6-11)

For a lot of Theists this thing they call being polite and courteous seems to also include endless manipulation and educated sophistry. They even will use it to turn the existence of very abusive faiths . . . I dont bother much going to faithful folks blogs because i dont really expect much straight forward honesty. . . . Yes indeed Theists can sure create some wonderful harmonizations that will end up with human throwing live babies into fire. Or that Joseph Smith found some Golden plates. Ect.Ect.Ect [sic]

Thanks for some semblance of an actual reply to my arguments (even a semi-rational one in-between all the endless humorous put-downs and psychoanalyses). But of course it is Loftus' argument and he needs to defend it. (2-6-11)

. . . the truth remains theists have traditionally proved they are quite capable of dragging themselves down into the bottomless mire and muck of being caught out ! and sprung for often being deceitful and untrustworthy. . . . And yet some theists will still wonder why some people would ever dare think of theists with such ridicule and contempt.

But it really isn't healthy for society to be respectful to adults who engage in and promote magical thinking. . . . I think mockery is the best way to end the inanity of all these believers in assorted faiths imagining themselves superior to all those who believe in a different brand of magic. . . . Faith makes people self righteous and nutty!

tsk tsk-- DA's feelings are hurt because people don't agree with him and no one here is coddling him for having magical beliefs. . . . the manipulations your indoctrinators used on you, Dave, don't work here. All believers in all "woo" feel insulted by those who think their beliefs are delusional.

I continue to await Loftus's counter-response. He made an indication that there is some slight chance it may happen. That may actually be on the topic, too (as an extra bonus). As for this thread and its 1001 rabbit trails, . . . zzzzzZZZZZ. (2-6-11)

You were the one who started the rabbit trails, you bozo-face-- you posted off topic and then had a fit when John didn't answer claiming censorship!

[I threw no "fit" at any time. I simply announced my new paper on the latest thread, so Loftus would see it. Because my first post disappeared, at first I thought it was censored. But after Loftus denied it, I figured out that it was Blogger's automatic spam function (as indeed it was, as confirmed by Loftus), and so I wrote on 2-4-11: "It musta been Blogger's automatic spam function. You can go to your comments section and check the spam folder. It acts weird sometimes. I should have thought of that. My apologies."]

People who feel saved for having magical beliefs aren't really capable of rational discussion on their magical beliefs. . . . the funny thing is is this was a thread illustrating how theists are unable to see themselves the way an outsider might see them.... and then you came in and proved the point-- which made goofing on you too irresiistable. [sic] You tried to plug your creepy website and now you're trying to imply that John not responding to your wackadoodle Christian conjecture means that your wackadoodle beliefs have merit... just like a slew of other wackadoodle Christians who post here trying to plug their goofy websites that no-one is going to. You guys should bond with each other and post on each other's site about how great all your arguments are since the rational people here can't seem to make sense of you and you end up feeling like your "patience is being tried" and we feel like we are being preached at by folks we'd never look to for advice.. . . I don't appreciate the self righteous folks who do believe in such things interrupting a humorous thread to push their beliefs while insulting those who rightly find such beliefs mock-worthy. You are the one who has been rude here-- not any of the atheists. I don't know any theist that would put up with someone interrupting a humorous thread to try to push some website while insulting the readership in the process.

My experience shows me that believers in the supernatural are seldom able to have rational conversations when it comes to their supernatural beliefs-- especially if they feel "saved" or "moral" or "righteous" because of those beliefs like Muslims and Fox News viewers. To me, you guys are like children pointing at presents under a Christmas tree while claiming that it's proof that Santa is real.

As such, I feel that YOU are poorly qualified for rational discussion here or anywhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if John comes to a similar conclusion. Surely, you don't waste your time on every "woo" who comes your way; why should John? What's in it for him?

Oh ok ...All of a sudden Dave doesnt want to play ball anymore ...First he makes these claims suggesting there is no good reason for atheists to mistrust theism .We put a few possible reasons forward why it might not be so wise to "trust" theism. But Daves no longer keen to play ball. . . . That seems to be Daves plan?, continue to turn a blind eye, put the fingers in the ears and say nah naaa nah naaa ! ...im not listening . . . But now Dave suddenly chooses to feel all sleepy and discontinue with the discussion that he started ?.Why is this ?, might it be because ? Dave knows he will need to be a little honest and admit that yes indeed he was wrong !. . . I think maybe Dave is having some trouble with dwelling within continuing denial .This seems to be a very traditional type trait for many faith believers. My own family sits rotting within a Christian cult stuck in this faithful "denial mode", . . . I mean why would John Loftus even bother getting involved in another bitch-fight again , with a theist who obviously cant even see any good valid reason at all to feel need of some mistrust for theists and their theism ,somebody so stuck in faithful denial mode he wont even bother to discuss it any further. Whats the use in discussing these matters much with theists on their blogs if this is the type of brick wall one comes up againsts right from the get-go.

I just want it known that I'm an equal opportunity mocker. I mock the Scientologists, Muslims, Mormons, and Christians. I mock those who believe in fairies and those who believe in astrology and those that believe in voo-doo. I mock reincarnationists as much as I mock those who believe in Heaven, hell, or Valhalla. I mock all those who believe in the supernatural. . . . I think the Christian "persecution complex" is HI-Larious given the fact that it's atheists that are regularly actually discriminated against in America . . . I think you'll find the majority of prejudice is the US is spread by Christians to Christians -- many of whom are dishonestly and hypocritically claiming to be persecuted because people on skeptic sites don't defer to their delusions!

I even purposely stay away from sites where other "ex members" of the cult we were born in, get together to chat. . . . Anyone dare even discuss it and they throw all their dollys out the pram and start wailing whaaa!...booo hoo i want my cuddly rug! They rather not face it, so as to claim the right to continue to live in "faithful" hope ...Even if it means history keeps on repeating itself ...and as such future generations need to keep suffering faith-abuse . . .

Keep it up, folks! I've always loved farce. I wanna see how many atheist stereotypes and caricatures of self-parodies can be present in one thread. Y'all are very inventive. It's marvelously entertaining (if little else). (2-7-11)

* * *

John Loftus then posted that I am far too ignorant and stupid for him to waste his time on. I quoted that at the end of the previous paper. If I see further papers of his that I think will serve as examples of shoddy, flimsy atheist reasoning, I will refute them, whether he chooses to respond or not. My job as an apologist is to defend truth and refute error. If those defending errors (such as atheism) see no need to defend their view against critique, then it helps our cause. It would be nice to actually have a dialogue, but my first duty is to refute error, whether a person is willing to "talk" or not.

And let my self-proclaimed critics or "enemies" (as the case may be) mock and insult all they want. It never has stopped me from doing anything and it never will. We're told by Jesus to fully expect this. Generally (though not always), it means we are doing something right and hitting a nerve.

2 comments:

I was treated with ferociousness when I happened upon a vile blog by an atheist. He did the 1001rabbit trail thing...made up fake discussions with a fake second blog identity but I caught him due to him replying to himself and used his own blog identity. Everyone hurls insults at me never addressed my questions, lied repeatly while changing back and forth from pagans to atheists, to agnostics but replied like deists, as the need arose.Most of it was about how I molest children while God watches, because my God loves evil and our Church teaches molestation and we tithe for it,that I must be alone,never get sex and a loser and fat...(I have a husband, four kids and a huge Catholic family and we homeschool).I finally got the answer I came there for from a guy, real or not, that the two on there welcomed back,righttt...but this guy said, DON't confuse atheism with a faith. Admiitted that he couldn't prove a negative, atheism. To which I replied, Exactly. You can't prove it. You take it on faith."Slam, dunk, and there's the game.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).